In a message dated 2/8/99 10:36:14 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
 
<< If it is true that a) "headgear brings the sticks up" and b) helmets cause
more injuries than they prevent, then why, when the NHL for some reason told
the players they could skip helmets three years ago, only one player (and a
bit player at that) chose to go helmetless, and he only did it for five games?
These are the guys that make a living doing this stuff. If we're going to be
basing conclusions on anecdotes anyway, this would seem to be a strong
argument in favor of the headgear.
 
George Downing
 
UNH '92 >>
 
First..."b)" is WRONG...helmets do not cause more injuries than they prevent
even with the sticks up. I think someone else implied that earlier but it
wasn't me.
 
My stance is that helmets bring the sticks up...which can cause as many
injuries going helmetless.
 
The reason why no one will go helmetless is simple...in order for there to be
a complete 180 on how players respect the helmetless player than about 90% of
the players would have to do it. With as many Euros and other players that
don't want to hit their head on the ice or get hit by the puck not wanting to
volunteer to take the headgear off...it will never happen.
 
Maybe that last sentence is a good way to finish off this marathon thread.
Helmets are forever, so is fighting. Let's talk about HOCKEY now.
 
Randy
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.